No one should have to surrender or have to be threatened with the loss of their guns. Just as people who do not own guns should have to bare the cost of guns used improperly. That $229 billion should be charged directly to the people responsible for creating the cost, not to those who do nothing to create it.

No one should have to surrender or have to be threatened with the loss of their guns. Just as people who do not own guns should have to bare the cost of guns used improperly. That $229 billion should be charged directly to the people responsible for creating the cost, not to those who do nothing to create it.

So how are we gonna collect that money from the gang bangers, the suiciders, the crazies and law enforcement?......

No one should have to surrender or have to be threatened with the loss of their guns. Just as people who do not own guns should have to bare the cost of guns used improperly. That $229 billion should be charged directly to the people responsible for creating the cost, not to those who do nothing to create it.

So how are we gonna collect that money from the gang bangers, the suiciders, the crazies and law enforcement?......

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Rick, Of course you don't, you would rather avoid paying for the cost of gun violence and that's understandable since you don't really do violence shooting at targets. The fact remains that guns cost society $229 billion dollars and those people who don't own guns shouldn't have to bare that cost. Cheap policies should be made available without disclosure of serial numbers just by the number of guns owned. Those who refuse to get policies should pay heavy fines and forfeit ownership. Almost everyone has auto insurance and that has done very well mitigating cost and damage and so should it be with guns.

SACRAMENTO — California authorities are empowered to seize weapons owned by convicted felons and people with mental illness, but staff shortages and funding cuts have left a backlog of more than 19,700 people to disarm, a law enforcement official said Tuesday.

Those gun owners have roughly 39,000 firearms, said Stephen Lindley, chief of the Bureau of Firearms for the state Department of Justice, testifying at a joint legislative hearing. His office lacks enough staff to confiscate all the weapons, which are recorded in the state's Armed Prohibited Persons database, he said.

The gun owners typically acquired the firearms legally, before being convicted of a felony or diagnosed with mental illness. Each year, the state investigates and seizes the guns of about 2,000 people on the Armed Prohibited Persons list, Lindley said, but each year about 3,000 names are added to the list.

"Despite our best efforts, the bureau does not have the funding or resources to keep up with this annual influx," he told the 15 assembled lawmakers.

The testimony showed how some of the state's strict gun laws have been undermined by California's budget problems. Lindley said it would cost $25 million to hire enough staff to clear the backlog within three years.

Democratic Sens. Mark Leno of San Francisco and President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg of Sacramento introduced a bill later Tuesday that would allow the Department of Justice to dip into funds collected when gun buyers pay a fee for background checks. There is a $20-million surplus in the account that could be tapped under the pair's proposal, SB 140.

The extra money, which could help eliminate the backlog in as little as a year, "would be a very wise and worthy investment," Steinberg said.

Lawmakers are considering a dozen proposals to curb gun violence after last month's Sandy Hook school massacre in Newtown, Conn.

Some would be funded with levies on gun owners, such as a 5-cent tax on every bullet purchased. Legislation has also been drafted that would require ammunition buyers to provide a thumbprint and ID for background checks. Some lawmakers have suggested that the state lift a prohibition on cities and counties adopting their own, tougher gun laws.

Tuesday's hearing was part business, part theater, with law enforcement officials displaying assault weapons and retired legislators testifying that they were harassed and intimidated by gun-rights advocates when they passed firearms-control laws in previous years.

Victims of gun crimes somberly recounted their stories.

Amanda Wilcox said she could not watch news footage of the Newtown parents, because it was too painful. In 2001, her daughter Laura, a college student, was shot to death in an office in Northern California by a mentally ill man with a semiautomatic weapon.

Wilcox, now an advocate with the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, urged lawmakers to enact stricter gun controls.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

If you like the way auto policies and laws for auto insurance work, then this is how gun insurance modeled after auto should work

I have 5 autos, 3 never see the street and therefore do not have any insurance on them.

If i do not shoot my guns I do not have to have insurance on them.

Right ?

Sure, I don't think insurance is required in every state for collector cars that aren't driven on the road.If you have collection gun pieces they shouldn't be required to be part of the insurance requirement, or so you'd think.

Edit to add: However, if they are used in the commission of a crime there should be a huge fine and confiscation.

No one should have to surrender or have to be threatened with the loss of their guns. Just as people who do not own guns should have to bare the cost of guns used improperly. That $229 billion should be charged directly to the people responsible for creating the cost, not to those who do nothing to create it.

I assume you read this little tidbit in that article?

Each year more than 11,000 people are murdered with a firearm, and more than 20,000 others commit suicide using one.

No one should have to surrender or have to be threatened with the loss of their guns. Just as people who do not own guns should have to bare the cost of guns used improperly. That $229 billion should be charged directly to the people responsible for creating the cost, not to those who do nothing to create it.

So how are we gonna collect that money from the gang bangers, the suiciders, the crazies and law enforcement?......

Insurance for all gun owners except law enforcement.

For one thing, that puts costs on people who are not part of the problem, and does nothing to deal with the vast majority of the deaths and associated costs, most of which are suicides and criminals who could never and would never purchase insurance.

Second, why exempt law enforcement? They are no more immune to misuse of a gun than anyone else who is not forbidden from legally owning a gun. The only point of exempting law enforcement from all these stupid proposals is to split them off from the general population so as to not lose their support. There is no legitimate reason for doing so.

No one should have to surrender or have to be threatened with the loss of their guns. Just as people who do not own guns should have to bare the cost of guns used improperly. That $229 billion should be charged directly to the people responsible for creating the cost, not to those who do nothing to create it.

I assume you read this little tidbit in that article?

Each year more than 11,000 people are murdered with a firearm, and more than 20,000 others commit suicide using one.

Kinda change$ the whole game now, donut?....

No change. Same old, tired game.

As a right-to-die supporter, I believe our right to life includes the right to destroy our own lives and that right implies a choice about how to go about it.

I just don't buy the idea that society SHOULD prevent a person like Phil Bolger from killing himself as he did. Whether we can is another question, and I don't believe we can, but I don't think we should even if it could somehow be made to work.

No one should have to surrender or have to be threatened with the loss of their guns. Just as people who do not own guns should have to bare the cost of guns used improperly. That $229 billion should be charged directly to the people responsible for creating the cost, not to those who do nothing to create it.

So how are we gonna collect that money from the gang bangers, the suiciders, the crazies and law enforcement?......

Insurance for all gun owners except law enforcement.

For one thing, that puts costs on people who are not part of the problem, and does nothing to deal with the vast majority of the deaths and associated costs, most of which are suicides and criminals who could never and would never purchase insurance.

Second, why exempt law enforcement? They are no more immune to misuse of a gun than anyone else who is not forbidden from legally owning a gun. The only point of exempting law enforcement from all these stupid proposals is to split them off from the general population so as to not lose their support. There is no legitimate reason for doing so.

Fines and confiscation handles those that do not want to be accountable. The state already indemnifies law enforcement, there is no reason for LEO to incur out of pocket expense.

No one should have to surrender or have to be threatened with the loss of their guns. Just as people who do not own guns should have to bare the cost of guns used improperly. That $229 billion should be charged directly to the people responsible for creating the cost, not to those who do nothing to create it.

I assume you read this little tidbit in that article?

Each year more than 11,000 people are murdered with a firearm, and more than 20,000 others commit suicide using one.

Kinda change$ the whole game now, donut?....

No change. Same old, tired game.

As a right-to-die supporter, I believe our right to life includes the right to destroy our own lives and that right implies a choice about how to go about it.

I just don't buy the idea that society SHOULD prevent a person like Phil Bolger from killing himself as he did. Whether we can is another question, and I don't believe we can, but I don't think we should even if it could somehow be made to work.

I'm going to assume that most people who commit suicide use legal firearms to accomplish their goal. If that is true, then they would have had insurance covering the weapon. If not, then gun companies should carry blanket insurance that covers the cost.

No one should have to surrender or have to be threatened with the loss of their guns. Just as people who do not own guns should have to bare the cost of guns used improperly. That $229 billion should be charged directly to the people responsible for creating the cost, not to those who do nothing to create it.

So how are we gonna collect that money from the gang bangers, the suiciders, the crazies and law enforcement?......

Insurance for all gun owners except law enforcement.

For one thing, that puts costs on people who are not part of the problem, and does nothing to deal with the vast majority of the deaths and associated costs, most of which are suicides and criminals who could never and would never purchase insurance.

Second, why exempt law enforcement? They are no more immune to misuse of a gun than anyone else who is not forbidden from legally owning a gun. The only point of exempting law enforcement from all these stupid proposals is to split them off from the general population so as to not lose their support. There is no legitimate reason for doing so.

Fines and confiscation handles those that do not want to be accountable. The state already indemnifies law enforcement, there is no reason for LEO to incur out of pocket expense.

There are plenty of LE gun misuses while off duty, range accidents, crime, suicides, etc. So if you are going to mandate it for everyone else, it should be mandated for police as well, unless you are going to collect their service weapon and store it while they are off duty.

Second, I don't see how fines and confiscations work for people who are already forbidden from owning a gun and therefor already committing a crime by possessing one. If the police know that someone has an illegal gun, they could simply confiscate it and throw the person in jail, thereby obviating the need for any insurance. The problem is that the people who generate most of the costs are not willing to play by the rules. Adding more rules will not help that.

Link to post

Share on other sites

So how are we gonna collect that money from the gang bangers, the suiciders, the crazies and law enforcement?......

Insurance for all gun owners except law enforcement.

For one thing, that puts costs on people who are not part of the problem, and does nothing to deal with the vast majority of the deaths and associated costs, most of which are suicides and criminals who could never and would never purchase insurance.

Second, why exempt law enforcement? They are no more immune to misuse of a gun than anyone else who is not forbidden from legally owning a gun. The only point of exempting law enforcement from all these stupid proposals is to split them off from the general population so as to not lose their support. There is no legitimate reason for doing so.

Fines and confiscation handles those that do not want to be accountable. The state already indemnifies law enforcement, there is no reason for LEO to incur out of pocket expense.

There are plenty of LE gun misuses while off duty, range accidents, crime, suicides, etc. So if you are going to mandate it for everyone else, it should be mandated for police as well, unless you are going to collect their service weapon and store it while they are off duty.

Second, I don't see how fines and confiscations work for people who are already forbidden from owning a gun and therefor already committing a crime by possessing one. If the police know that someone has an illegal gun, they could simply confiscate it and throw the person in jail, thereby obviating the need for any insurance. The problem is that the people who generate most of the costs are not willing to play by the rules. Adding more rules will not help that.

Please see my L.A. Times article I posted upstairs. Kail authorities not only KNOW the names of the 20,000 convicted felons that have guns right now, but the majority of their addresses. But supposedly Sukramento 'can't' find $20 million bucks laying around to hire more LEO's to go pick them up. Which is complete and total bull shit......

No one should have to surrender or have to be threatened with the loss of their guns. Just as people who do not own guns should have to bare the cost of guns used improperly. That $229 billion should be charged directly to the people responsible for creating the cost, not to those who do nothing to create it.

I assume you read this little tidbit in that article?

Each year more than 11,000 people are murdered with a firearm, and more than 20,000 others commit suicide using one.

Kinda change$ the whole game now, donut?....

No change. Same old, tired game.

As a right-to-die supporter, I believe our right to life includes the right to destroy our own lives and that right implies a choice about how to go about it.

I just don't buy the idea that society SHOULD prevent a person like Phil Bolger from killing himself as he did. Whether we can is another question, and I don't believe we can, but I don't think we should even if it could somehow be made to work.

I'm going to assume that most people who commit suicide use legal firearms to accomplish their goal. If that is true, then they would have had insurance covering the weapon. If not, then gun companies should carry blanket insurance that covers the cost.

I don't see how gun companies can be held responsible for criminal misuse of their products.

Do we insure other things that people use to kill themselves? Who would be the beneficiary of Phil Bolger's policy, anyway? And what were the "costs to society" of his death that needed to reimbursed to... well, someone?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I doubt the numbers of range accidents, crime, or even suicide is significant for LEO, but since they are on call 24/7 the state should indemnify their "mistakes" that does not mean the state should cover personal weapons. Secondly, fines and confiscations for the lack of auto insurance has been a workable solution for many states. Certainly, it is better that doing nothing.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Please see my L.A. Times article I posted upstairs. Kail authorities not only KNOW the names of the 20,000 convicted felons that have guns right now, but the majority of their addresses. But supposedly Sukramento 'can't' find $20 million bucks laying around to hire more LEO's to go pick them up. Which is complete and total bull shit......

If the story is accurate, that is really pathetic.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Please see my L.A. Times article I posted upstairs. Kail authorities not only KNOW the names of the 20,000 convicted felons that have guns right now, but the majority of their addresses. But supposedly Sukramento 'can't' find $20 million bucks laying around to hire more LEO's to go pick them up. Which is complete and total bull shit......

If the story is accurate, that is really pathetic.

Yups. So once again, Kali has $20 million bucks in an account that came from us legit gun buyer$ background check$----yet they won't use it to get the 35,000 guns away from people they already know are not legally allowed to own guns.

Make any sense to you?.....

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Please see my L.A. Times article I posted upstairs. Kail authorities not only KNOW the names of the 20,000 convicted felons that have guns right now, but the majority of their addresses. But supposedly Sukramento 'can't' find $20 million bucks laying around to hire more LEO's to go pick them up. Which is complete and total bull shit......

If the story is accurate, that is really pathetic.

Yups. So once again, Kali has $20 million bucks in an account that came from us legit gun buyer$ background check$----yet they won't use it to get the 35,000 guns away from people they already know are not legally allowed to own guns.

Make any sense to you?.....

Makes no sense to me, but I don't think like a politician. If your goal is to consolidate power and influence, then I could picture scenarios where it makes sense. Politicians don't solve problems because there is no money in solving problems, only in declaring "war" on stuff. Solve the drug problem? No money or power is awarded. Declare a "war on drugs", you get more power, more money budgeted, more laws passed, more people hired, and a bigger govt. A "war on drugs" makes no sense if you want to solve a drug problem, but it sure as shit does if you want to amass power and wealth. I am going to guess it is something like that.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I'll read the article fully later as I find the statistical assertions very surprising........specifically I'm curious about the methodology because 33,000 deaths seems higher than I would expect. So I'll read it fully later when I have time but.........

But I gotta tell you.............I read the first few paragraphs and 1) spare me the drama and most importantly 2) the ER Doc intubated her through the rib cage?? Huh?? Unless things have REALLY changed in the trauma rooms across the nation.............there simply isn't a way to intubate someone through their rib cage. An emergency trach above the sternal notch......perhaps but that would be because the oral and upper airway was blocked. Through the rib cage? No..........and by the way.......if you are intubated....you are not wailing like a dog as described so dramatically. You are not moving any air over your vocal chords because there is a tube passing between them. What I'm guessing they mean is the Doc inserted a chest tube into the chest through the rib cage to decompress a tension pneumothorax or a hemothorax both of which can be immediate life threatening conditions which impede adequate breathing. I did those as a paramedic many times both with a dart (or tube) and with a needle. If they got that so wrong in the first couple paragraphs of a intensive 6 month investigation report.....makes me wonder about the methodology.

If they are intubating the trachea through the rib cage that would be a thing to see..................I'd love to know if its now a procedure done in the ED or Trauma Room.........

On a side note, I did once see a guy I brought in with a chest shot who was headed downhill very rapidly. We hit the doors and he was unconscious with nearly no BP. The trauma surgeon immediately cracked his chest (which is a very impressive thing to watch) and found a hole in his heart in the left ventricle bleeding out. He grabbed a urinary catheter that has a balloon on the end that once inserted in the urethra is inflated to keep the catheter in place. He stuck it in the whole in the heart and inflated the balloon thus sealing the hole and off to the OR they went. Pretty frigging cool shit............so I'd not rule out some off the wall through the rib cage intubation...........but I'd need to read it as a possible procedure elsewhere than Mother Jones........I just don't see how its even anatomically possible.

No one should have to surrender or have to be threatened with the loss of their guns. Just as people who do not own guns should have to bare the cost of guns used improperly. That $229 billion should be charged directly to the people responsible for creating the cost, not to those who do nothing to create it.

I assume you read this little tidbit in that article?

Each year more than 11,000 people are murdered with a firearm, and more than 20,000 others commit suicide using one.

Kinda change$ the whole game now, donut?....

Did they buy life insurance first? Some of this may be attributed to suicide by the evil insurance companies to avoid payment.

No one should have to surrender or have to be threatened with the loss of their guns. Just as people who do not own guns should have to bare the cost of guns used improperly. That $229 billion should be charged directly to the people responsible for creating the cost, not to those who do nothing to create it.

I assume you read this little tidbit in that article?

Each year more than 11,000 people are murdered with a firearm, and more than 20,000 others commit suicide using one.

Kinda change$ the whole game now, donut?....

Did they buy life insurance first? Some of this may be attributed to suicide by the evil insurance companies to avoid payment.

I think self-murderers should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.....

Link to post

Share on other sites

As a right-to-die supporter, I believe our right to life includes the right to destroy our own lives and that right implies a choice about how to go about it.

I just don't buy the idea that society SHOULD prevent a person like Phil Bolger from killing himself as he did. Whether we can is another question, and I don't believe we can, but I don't think we should even if it could somehow be made to work.

I'm going to assume that most people who commit suicide use legal firearms to accomplish their goal. If that is true, then they would have had insurance covering the weapon. If not, then gun companies should carry blanket insurance that covers the cost.

I don't see how gun companies can be held responsible for criminal misuse of their products.

Do we insure other things that people use to kill themselves? Who would be the beneficiary of Phil Bolger's policy, anyway? And what were the "costs to society" of his death that needed to reimbursed to... well, someone?

Tom Ray,

We hold car companies responsible, there is no reason why gun companies should be exempt from some level of responsibility.

Cite some examples of holding car companies responsible for the criminal misuse of their products.

No one should have to surrender or have to be threatened with the loss of their guns. Just as people who do not own guns should have to bare the cost of guns used improperly. That $229 billion should be charged directly to the people responsible for creating the cost, not to those who do nothing to create it.

I assume you read this little tidbit in that article?

Each year more than 11,000 people are murdered with a firearm, and more than 20,000 others commit suicide using one.

Kinda change$ the whole game now, donut?....

No change. Same old, tired game.

As a right-to-die supporter, I believe our right to life includes the right to destroy our own lives and that right implies a choice about how to go about it.

I just don't buy the idea that society SHOULD prevent a person like Phil Bolger from killing himself as he did. Whether we can is another question, and I don't believe we can, but I don't think we should even if it could somehow be made to work.

I'm going to assume that most people who commit suicide use legal firearms to accomplish their goal. If that is true, then they would have had insurance covering the weapon. If not, then gun companies should carry blanket insurance that covers the cost.

Why should there be insurance for people who commit suicide? In fact if anything, the govt should be paying the family for all the lifetime cost the quitter just saved the tax payers.

They add up to 16k people, far more than are killed by the type of gun violence that is inflicted by others. Almost as many as self-inflicted "violence" using guns.

We obviously need plastic bag control just to start. How much financial responsibility should plastic bag manufacturers take? Or do people usually use ropes? Are we going after the rope moguls for being merchants of death?

Over $5 billion tax dollars are used each year to cover the cost of U.S. gun homicides. Non-gun owners’ tax dollars pay the lion’s share of this cost. This makes no sense; gun owners should pay 100% of this cost.

(Note:Each gun homicide costs $400,000 tax dollars. On average, there are 12,000 U.S. gun homicides each year at a cost of $5 billon tax dollars.

Supporting cost data provided to media on request.)

The NRA and gun owners will shout and rant that it is not fair for law-abiding gun owners to be paying for the cost of criminal and gang banger gun violence. But that misses the point.

If I do not own a car, my tax dollars are not used to pay for the cost of car driving deaths and accidents. Law-abiding drivers pay for them through their insurance. Additionally, their premiums have a built in excess to cover costs generated by illegal drivers who do not have insurance.

What makes the NRA’s and gun owners’ position even more outrageous is that they oppose and defeat any law that would make it harder for criminals and gang bangers to get guns; this causes far higher rates of gun violence—and consequently far higher tax payer costs.

The NRA relentlessly protects gun industry sales to the criminal market. Studies show sales to criminals represent minimally 25% of annual gun industry sales. Making sure criminals have guns allows the NRA to increase industry sales; their cynical marketing says everyone must be carrying a gun at all times to protect themselves from armed criminals.

A fair solution to cover the cost of gun violence would be for the law-abiding gun owners to carry insurance as do the law-abiding car drivers. Further, there should be a tax on gun and bullet purchases. The gun owners want the pleasure of owning their guns but do not want the responsibility of covering the cost of gun violence. That is patently unfair to the law-abiding citizens who do not own guns and have no interest in gun-related activities.

Over the last 20 years, $100 billion tax dollars have been used to pay for the cost of gun homicides. It is high time for this cost to be fully transferred to the proper party—the gun owners.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I'm sure it's not just the plastic bags. As I said, there's probably a good deal of rope violence out there. We need to hold ALL those companies responsible for what individuals did with their products, right? Because otherwise it seems you're just singling out the guns are are concerned with them, not with the thousands of other suicides.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I'm sure it's not just the plastic bags. As I said, there's probably a good deal of rope violence out there. We need to hold ALL those companies responsible for what individuals did with their products, right? Because otherwise it seems you're just singling out the guns are are concerned with them, not with the thousands of other suicides.

We should mandate that bridge builders carry self-murdering insurance whilst were at it......

Did Mother Jones do that obviously important cost-benefit analysis as part of their "study"?

Cite your quotes, you phony. These numbers are preposterous, and do not face examination well.

You should know better than to post unsubstantiated crap on this forum.

Kleck concludes his article by saying we “have not offered any new criticisms” and, like Dr. Hemenway before us, do “not once cite the one thing that could legitimately cast doubt on our estimates—better empirical evidence.” However, had he read thesecond page of our column, he would have seen that the entire point of our article was to highlight new empirical evidence debunking Kleck’s claims.

Here are the facts Kleck missed: According to his own survey more than 50 percent of respondents claim to have reported their defensive gun use to the police. This means we should find at least half of his 2.5 million annual Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs) in police reports alone. Instead, the most comprehensive nonpartisan effort to catalog police and media reports on DGUs by The Gun Violence Archive was barely able to find 1,600 in 2014. Where are the remaining 99.94 percent of Kleck’s supposed DGUs hiding?

It would be disappointing to see any professor relegated to using falsehoods and ad hominem attacks in a desperate attempt to preserve the tattered remains of his thoroughly repudiated research. Yet, such tactics are particularly deplorable when they are used in service of a gun-worshipping culture that regularly generates tragedy on a massive scale

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Please see my L.A. Times article I posted upstairs. Kail authorities not only KNOW the names of the 20,000 convicted felons that have guns right now, but the majority of their addresses. But supposedly Sukramento 'can't' find $20 million bucks laying around to hire more LEO's to go pick them up. Which is complete and total bull shit......

Thanks for your support, Rick. We agree on your proposal to face this. These marginal individuals show high-risk factors in their behavior.

Your public statement supporting the collection of their weapons may be termed "gun grabbing" by some...but your proposal is both reasonable, and evidence-based.

--having two or more driving-under-the-influence convictions in a five-year period, and

--having two or more controlled-substance convictions in five years.

What Works: Policies to Reduce Gun Violence

The use of a gun greatly increases the odds that violence will lead to a fatality: This problem calls for urgent action. Firearm prohibitions for high-risk groups — domestic violence offenders, persons convicted of violent misdemeanor crimes, and individuals with mental illness who have been adjudicated as being a threat to themselves or to others — have been shown to reduce violence. The licensing of handgun purchasers, background check requirements for all gun sales, and close oversight of retail gun sellers can reduce the diversion of guns to criminals. Reducing the incidence of gun violence will require interventions through multiple systems, including legal, public health, public safety, community, and health. Increasing the availability of data and funding will help inform and evaluate policies designed to reduce gun violence.

Link to post

Share on other sites

It's pretty simple really. And ridiculous. Kali continues to make legal gun purchasing and ownership both onerous and costly (ergo punishing us responsible firearm enthusiasts)---but refuses to follow the law and remove the guns from those they KNOW can not legally own them. Sukramento and Cali are poster children for hipocrisy....AND are basically aiding and abetting felons. I for one hope that none of these 20k-plus convicted criminals do not use their guns to harm or kill someone....but if they do their blood will be on Kali's hands......

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Cite some examples of holding car companies responsible for the criminal misuse of their products.

Isn't that the reason why we have insurance for auto accidents in the first place? The manipulation of tort law made it necessary to provide some kind of reparation for injury caused in accidents. Gun manufacturers have been able to hold off product liability lawsuits for a long time, insurance would address some of the issues that guns create.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It's pretty simple really. And ridiculous. Kali continues to make legal gun purchasing and ownership both onerous and costly (ergo punishing us responsible firearm enthusiasts)---but refuses to follow the law and remove the guns from those they KNOW can not legally own them. Sukramento and Cali are poster children for hipocrisy....AND are basically aiding and abetting felons. I for one hope that none of these 20k-plus convicted criminals do not use their guns to harm or kill someone....but if they do their blood will be on Kali's hands......

What is up with that situation? the link you cited was from 2012 -2013 certainly something has happened in that time? or not?

Link to post

Share on other sites

It's pretty simple really. And ridiculous. Kali continues to make legal gun purchasing and ownership both onerous and costly (ergo punishing us responsible firearm enthusiasts)---but refuses to follow the law and remove the guns from those they KNOW can not legally own them. Sukramento and Cali are poster children for hipocrisy....AND are basically aiding and abetting felons. I for one hope that none of these 20k-plus convicted criminals do not use their guns to harm or kill someone....but if they do their blood will be on Kali's hands......

What is up with that situation? the link you cited was from 2012 -2013 certainly something has happened in that time? or not?

Here's a WSJ article I just found dated July 2103 (a bit later after the other article I posted). Nice to know (I think) that Kali isn't the only state not doing their job.....

New Push Tries to Confiscate Firearms From Felons, Mentally IllGun-confiscation programs start to launch across the country but have their critics

ENLARGE

The gun suppression unit of the Cook County Sheriff's Police in action.ROB HART FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

By

JACK NICAS

July 26, 2013 8:52 p.m. ET

HARVEY, Ill.—Many politicians have called recently for new laws to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from obtaining guns. But in some parts of the U.S., the focus has turned to confiscating firearms from the convicts and mentally ill who already have them.

Under federal and most state laws, legal gun owners lose their right to possess firearms when they are convicted of a felony or violent misdemeanor, or are judged by a court to be mentally ill. Officials tell these people they must surrender their guns, but in much of the country, authorities don't ensure they do. Instead, people who are prohibited from having guns are left to get rid of them on their own.

Now some officials are accelerating efforts to seize those firearms. In recent months, the sheriff of Cook County, which includes Chicago, launched a gun-confiscation program; California began adding agents assigned to take away firearms; and New York enacted a law that paves the way for such a program.

On a recent Wednesday here in the rundown suburbs south of Chicago, five police officers with bulletproof vests and Glock handguns knocked on doors and tried to talk their way into homes of felons and mentally ill residents who, according to records, held gun licenses.

In its first six months, the unit has confiscated nearly 200 guns, but it has almost 5,000 more names to check.

"It's beyond absurd that no one takes it to the final step and makes sure these people don't have guns," said Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, a former Democratic state lawmaker who says he launched the gun-confiscation program in February after recognizing the lack of enforcement.

Critics say such programs sometimes also confiscate the guns of people convicted of crimes unrelated to firearms, such as drunken driving or tax evasion. George Mason University law professor Joyce Lee Malcolm, a Second Amendment scholar and gun-rights advocate, said laws on who can't possess firearms are too broad. "People that have committed a nonviolent crime are not a danger to the community," she said, "so it seems wrong to seize guns from them."

California has the only statewide program dedicated to confiscating guns from people who aren't allowed to possess them. It adopted its policy in 2007, but for years a lack of funding limited the program to periodic sweeps. In April, state lawmakers approved an additional $24 million for the effort, funded by fees on gun purchases. California Attorney General Kamala Harris is now doubling the number of state Justice Department gun agents to almost 70. After seizing more than 11,000 guns since 2007, authorities aim to take back an additional 40,000 firearms from 20,000 people over the next several years.

ENLARGE

A confiscated pistol seized by investigators of the unit.ROB HART FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

In January, Ms. Harris wrote a letter to Vice President Joe Biden, urging him to consider a similar federal gun-confiscation program. California's program "addresses a critical gap in our nation's approach to gun violence—what do we do about the guns that are already in the hands of persons who, by law, are considered too dangerous to possess them?" she wrote. The White House didn't respond to requests for comment.

A month later, two Democratic congressmen from California introduced legislation that would provide federal grants to states that set up similar gun-confiscation programs. The bill remains in a House committee.

New York lawmakers this year passed sweeping gun-control legislation that creates a statewide database of handgun owners that will allow authorities to see if any are prohibited from possessing guns. The law also requires mental-health professionals to report if patients are dangerous, and authorizes law enforcement to confiscate those patients' firearms. Officials said that the new data and authority will help law enforcement confiscate more guns there.

Officials in Illinois and California can systematically confiscate firearms because they collect more data on gun owners than most states, experts said. They merge data on who owns guns with a list of people who can't legally do so, whether because of a felony conviction, violent misdemeanor, restraining order, involuntary stay in a mental hospital or court adjudication that they are mentally unstable.

In most states, "police simply don't know who the gun owners are, and without that info it's effectively impossible to have a viable felon-confiscation policy," said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. "Compiling information on who owns guns is politically toxic, so very few states can enact such policies."

Gun-rights advocates have long fought to prevent government from keeping data on gun owners. Federal law requires destruction of data on the background checks that the government runs on gun buyers, and fears of a national gun registry helped kill gun-control legislation in Congress this year. "Gun databases lead to confiscation," said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation.

Mr. Gottlieb's group has collected 160,000 signatures for a ballot initiative in Washington state, where it is based, that would require law enforcement to get a court order before confiscating a firearm. Mr. Gottlieb says his group hopes to get another 165,000 by January to ensure the measure qualifies for next year's ballot. "We know where [the government is] going with all this: They don't want anyone to have a firearm if they had their way," he said.

Current and former officials dismiss that. Kenneth Melson, former acting head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, said that during his nearly 30 years in the Justice Department, "I have never heard of any program or desire to create a program that would go out and confiscate willy-nilly the guns of innocent citizens."

Although gun-rights advocates agree that guns should be taken from violent criminals, they also say the efforts are confiscating firearms from those who aren't dangerous, under the guise of making communities safer. "Politicians are claiming that this program goes after violent felons.…Instead, it goes after harmless civilians that don't know they're prohibited because the laws are so complex," said Chuck Michel, a California civil-rights lawyer and author of the book, "California Gun Laws."

Well with that Atomic Bomb 4 you're sitting on, you really need to be licensed, fee'd and regulated. 'Cuz you're just one turn of the ignition from blowing up an entire fuking marina. And probably some dolphins as well.